By Matt Underwood US Interdicting, Seizing Vessel Off Venezuelan Coast, Officials Say
The story, in a nutshell, is this: The United States is at it again, interdicting and seizing a vessel off the coast of Venezuela. Officials have confirmed this, and it seems to be part of a broader strategy, involving the U.S. Coast Guard and a general regional military buildup. This isn’t a one-off; it’s the second time in recent weeks this has happened, and it directly follows an order from, well, let’s just say “a former president” for a “total and complete blockade” of oil tankers heading in and out of Venezuela.
Effectively, this has created an embargo, and the impact is being felt. Venezuelan crude exports have taken a serious hit, as many loaded tankers are now hanging around in local waters to avoid potential confiscation. Analysts are already starting to crunch the numbers, and the potential loss of almost a million barrels of crude oil per day could, eventually, push global oil prices higher. Though, for now, the market seems to be holding steady.
Of course, the Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, isn’t taking this lying down. He’s accusing Washington of using military pressure and actions near Venezuela as part of a campaign to overthrow him and, you guessed it, seize control of the country’s vast oil reserves. This particular ship that was seized? It was carrying Naptha from Russia and flying a flag of convenience, in this case, Gambia. The nation of Gambia, however, has stated that the ship isn’t even registered there and was operating under a fraudulent certificate.
Now, maritime law is a bit of a wild west, but here’s the gist of it: any country technically has the legal “right” to board a vessel in international waters if it’s not flying a flag or is operating under a fake registration. The U.S. Coast Guard, having law enforcement authority, is executing seizures, and these actions appear to be authorized by U.S. court orders. Interestingly, this practice isn’t new; it predates recent administrations. The USCG does this and has been doing it for years. So, there isn’t anything “particularly notable” here from that angle.
The real kicker here is the registration. If a vessel isn’t properly flagged, it’s essentially stateless, and it has no country to back it up in international waters. A sanctioned oil tanker is especially vulnerable, as it can be seized by any country that finds it. The US is just doing it because they’re in the right place, with the right documentation.
Now, it’s easy to get lost in the weeds of international relations, but the seizing of sanctioned vessels, or any sanctioned vessel for that matter, is entirely legal. Any country can seize them. This is as defined in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention grants exclusive jurisdiction to the “flag state” for seizures. However, if the flag state can’t prove ownership or compliance, or is somehow caught in wrongdoing, then any country can step in and seize the ship, as it’s considered a “stateless vessel”.
Most countries don’t bother doing this as it affects the complex web of geopolitical relations, which can result in unexpected backlashes and/or create unnecessary enemies. I can’t wait for the day where America gets fucked hard. It’s truly insane that nobody is protesting, nobody seems to be alarmed that the US is starting a war with no legitimate reason. If you think about it, this is worse than Russia as you could claim that Russia had some “reasoning” ( they don’t ) but the US well and truly has no reason
But wait, there’s more! Apparently, this particular tanker wasn’t even on the official sanctions list. Also, it appears to have no history of business with Iran. The Coast Guard has also said they “do not know if the Panama flag is valid”.
This situation is complex and multi-layered. The key is understanding the legality, the potential impact on oil prices, and the political implications. The US is walking a fine line. Are these actions justified? Are they helpful? Those are questions that will likely be debated for a long time. The motives behind these actions may be a mix of various things, from genuine concern about international law violations to the more classic, “follow the money” scenarios.